Skip to content

Uncategorized

Reminder – carnival next week

A quick reminder that Practical Ethics News will host the 109th Philosophers' Carnival on 7th June.  Don't forget to nominate your favourite (recent) philosophy blog post via this link. Posts need not be on the topic of practical ethics, although they should be accessible to a popular audience.  Posts relating to current affairs are especially… Read More »Reminder – carnival next week

The carnival is coming…

Practical Ethics News will host the 109th Philosophers' Carnival on 7th June.  If you know of a particularly good (recent) philosophy blog post, you can nominate it for inclusion via this link. Posts need not be on the topic of practical ethics, although they should be accessible to a popular audience.  Posts relating to current… Read More »The carnival is coming…

Comments policy

We encourage readers of our blog, including those who do not have a background in philosophy or ethics, to respond to posts and to engage in debate with our authors, and with each other. Comments should be polite, concise and relevant to the topic. Authors will respond to comments where possible, though may not respond… Read More »Comments policy

Response to Embrace the controversy: let’s offer Project Prevention on the NHS

Dominic is right thataddicts are competent to decide on sponsored sterilisation. I have argued that addicts can be autonomous and can consent to research trials involving drugs of addiction (Foddy, B., Savulescu, J.. (2006). ‘Addiction and Autonomy: Can Addicted People Consent to the Prescription of Their Drug of Addiction?’ Bioethics. 20 (1): 1-15 (Feb). DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2006.00470.x). I have also argued that paying people large amounts of money to participate in risky experiments does not coerce them or unreasonably induce them (Savulescu, J. (2001) ‘Taking the Plunge’. New Scientist; 169:50) and elsewhere that it is reasonable to offer people money for their organs – the only real ethical issue being to settle on a fair minimum price.

So there is nothing intrinsically wrong with offering addicts money to be sterilised. The only issue is – why stop at addicts? The principle behind this would seem to be that addicts are unfit to parent. But what about paedophiles, the mentally ill, or intellectually disabled? It is hard to see how the principle would not extend to a form of passive eugenics, like what the Nazis imposed in more extreme forms.

The obvious way to avoid this is to offer the inducement to everyone. This has the lovely consequence that those who don’t really want to or value parenting would take the money. And they are not likely to be any more model parents that addicts are.

Read More »Response to Embrace the controversy: let’s offer Project Prevention on the NHS

Political Responsibility

The prospect of a hung parliament following the upcoming election has raised several interesting ethical issues. One such issue which has been discussed is what are the responsibilities of the party which holds the balance of power? Should members of that party support the party holding the majority of votes or follow their own party… Read More »Political Responsibility